RFC: 8136978 Much nearly duplicated code for vmError support

[Kim Barrett]

On Oct 13, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Sebastian Sickelmann <sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> But for ucontext_set_pc and ucontext_get_pc i see two variants:
> 
> Implement in in os/[*]/vm/os_[*].cpp like this:
> 
>    address os::Posix::ucontext_get_pc(ucontext_t* ctx) {
>      return os::Linux::ucontext_get_pc(ctx);
>    }
> 
> and call the existing methods from the os_cpu directory.
> 
> Or remove the ucontext_get_pc and ucontext_set_pc from the
> os/[*]/vm/os_[*].hpp and change the implementations in
> os_cpu/*/vm/os_[*]_[**].cpp from os::[*]::ucontext.......   to
> os::Posix::ucontext.........
> 
> I think the solutions are identically from the view of the compile
> result at least when inlining is used.
> 
> I think the first solutions would creates a smaller changeset.
> I think the second solution would lead to a slightly smaller codebase.
> 
> What do you think? I personally prefer the second.

I prefer the second as well, but you should get an opinion from someone on the
runtime team, as they’re the folks who will end up maintaining the result.

Having multiple scattered os::Posix:: implementations would be consistent in style with
the multiple scattered os:: implementations, but still a new thing to know about.